Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi -
The petitioner has challenged the notice of reopening of petitioner's assessment dated 18.9.2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011. Admittedly, the petitioner had not filed return of income for the assessment year 2010-2011. However, main ground on which besides others, the petitioner wishes to press the challenge is that the notice was not issued within the time limit. Undisputedly, the last date for issuance of notice was 30.3.2017. According to the counsel for the petitioner, such notice was dispatched to a wrong address and therefore, never received by the petitioner. He highlighted that the petitioner had changed the address and filed several returns from the changed address for last many years. Ignoring such important aspects, the department had, if at all, dispatched the notice to a wrong address and, therefore, there was no compliance with the statutory requirement of issuance of notice within the time period.
On the other hand, case of the department is that the notice was dispatched at the petitioner's declared address. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the department maintains details of the assesses which can be corelated to the
Permanent Account Numbers issued. The notices were dispatched at the address which was available in the system of the department. The petitioner had never applied for change of address and, therefore, the department was obviously not aware about it.
These are disputed questions of facts. Whether the system of the department contains the petitioner's old address as declared by him earlier and, therefore, the department was correct in sending the notice to such address would need proper examination. At the same time, the petitioner's contention that without the change of the address, the system would not accept the petitioner's returns declaring new address also cannot be brushed aside. All in all, these are issues we are not inclined to go in a writ petition. These issues need to be gone into in the departmental proceedings in regular assessments. The authorities would have sufficient time and opportunity to examine such disputed questions.
While disposing of the petition, therefore, it is clarified that all the contentions of the petitioner to the validity of the notice are kept open and further the mere fact that the Assessing Officer disposed of the petitioner's objection would not preclude him from entertaining the petitioner's contention that the notice was dispatched to a wrong address and therefore, time limit for issuance of notice had expired.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.